It seems likely that some logging is going to take place on the Waynesville watershed. I’m personally OK with that, but others feel very strongly that it just shouldn’t happen — never, not in any case. I respect that position, I just disagree with it.

The town board will probably approve a management plan that could allow logging by a narrow 3-2 margin along battle lines already clearly drawn. Between now and the next town board election, there’s little doubt some will do their darndest to turn this into a campaign issue. That could help make a sometimes boring town aldermen election a bit more exciting.

There’s another side to this debate that has also been interesting to study. It concerns how this issue is being argued. The war of words often gives one side an edge before a debate even begins. These days, politics is all about how one frames an argument, so whomever is more successful at co-opting the right words often gains an upper hand.

•••

So here’s what I’m talking about: I think two of the gentlemen who support logging on Waynesville’s watershed — Paul Carlson with the Land Trust for the Little Tennessee and Peter Bates with Western Carolina University — are both environmentalists.

Some will never be able to accept that as truth. Many of those who have been in the trenches fighting against clear-cutting, trying to protect endangered species, blocking attempts to cut giant redwoods and sequoias, and making sure water quality is protected, will never support the idea of loggers as environmentalists. It is just outside of their realm of comprehension.

But when Bates says the logging will only be done to promote a healthy forest and continued high water quality, I think he’s telling the truth. Sure, the town will receive a bit of money for the timber. But the motive is not the same as it is for people who make a living from logging. It’s a very different set of issues when the logging is motivated by profit.

But that’s where the whole word game comes to play. When President George Bush calls his bill to cut timber in the national forests a “Healthy Forest Initiative,” we are skeptical. When Rep. Charles Taylor, R-Brevard, attaches a rider to a spending bill that will allow logging companies to clear damaged and diseased trees from places where logging is otherwise banned, we get suspicious. It’s no secret that the political right does not support environmental measures as much as the left, so when those guys say they are protecting trees, many of us just don’t believe it.

So it’s no wonder that when Bates talks about minimizing the number of trees taken and cutting diseased and damaged trees, many just can’t believe that’s all that will happen. The political right has co-opted the terminology and used it to accomplish just the opposite of what was promised. So it has created suspicion, and those who are trying to do the right thing suffer due to that doublespeak.

Environmentalists, though, have created their own problems. Because many hard-core tree huggers believe every tree should be saved no matter what the cost, many who support environmental initiatives will have a hard time admitting that they could support the kind of plan that would be imposed on this watershed. It’s like sleeping with the enemy.

But here’s the truth: I’ve known Carlson for years, and he is an environmentalist. He has worked to put conservation easements on thousands of acres in Western North Carolina, and many of those easements created forever wild habitats. When that is a viable option, he’s excited to do just that.

A new kind of conservation

With their forestry background, though, people like Carlson and Bates are heralding a different brand of conservation. Locking up wilderness areas is great, but even more land can be protected from development if there are people advocating for a mixed-use conservation that makes room for agriculture of silviculture.

I won’t argue the innate value of undisturbed, wild forests versus those that are managed. If I had my druthers I would rather have the wild forest any day, but that’s just a personal feeling based more on emotional nostalgia than science. It just seems better to let Mother Nature take its course where possible.

But 100 years from now, we’ll have more protected forest land if we who consider ourselves environmentalists also show support for a kind of mixed-use conservation. In fact I think it’s important for local, state and federal governments to enact laws to encourage this kind of conservation by creating more tax breaks.

•••

I’m not saying the land in Waynesville’s watershed needs to be logged. But if it can be conserved, and it can be shown to others that there can be some logging while also protecting the water quality and wildlife, our grandchildren may have more forests to enjoy in the future. I’m comfortable calling these supporters of logging environmentalists. It’s the truth.

(Scott McLeod can be reached at info@smokymountainnews.com.)